Yes, the masses are obviously not capable of managing their own affairs, let us have the state drug and judge people! Let us abolish these "protections" lest the wealthy and powerful benefit from them. It is not as if they would be the ones deciding who gets drugged or anything!

As Shakespeare said, kill all the lawyers (albeit from the mouth of an aspiring dictator).

Actually, it is the lack of attorneys, judges, juries, etc. that are the problem. Everyone should have access to legal counsel and fair trial, not just the wealthy. The fact that you may disagree with a result here or there does not change the fact that such a system is the ideal. Inquisitorial, secret proceedings where the police can abduct you in the night and you can be convicted on your own words without ever knowing the charges are not.

Besides, there is no "truth drug". What you are probably referring to isthiopental sodium (or the tradename Sodium Pentothal, property of Abbot Labs). It is actually a sedative. In many cases this reduces inhibitions and, consequently, causes recipients to be more "chatty". However, just like alcohol, it is no guarantee of truth. Far from it, actually, as anyone who has been around intoxicated persons quickly realizes.

However, for people who get their chemistry and psychology from the entertainment media, I guess it is not surprising that people believe things like "lie detectors" (actually stress tests) and "truth serums" exist.

However, for people who get their chemistry and psychology from the entertainment media, I guess it is not surprising that people believe things like "lie detectors" (actually stress tests) and "truth serums" exist.

Well, the reason I used that term was because, I couldn't remember the name of the actual drug. Thanks for the enlightment though. Besides, I didn't mean to abolish lawyers completely - lawyers are useful for civil cases after all. But, it'd be nice to know that people that are getting off of murder & mollestation conviction's are actually innocent & people that are being executed are actually guilty. Because, physical evidence isn't always true when taken out of a certain context.

Oh, I didn't mean to sound condescending in that last line; it was more a critique of how badly the corporate media is doing educating anyone about anything. More proof that capitalism doesn't always work.....

Anyhow, lawyers are far more important for criminal matters than civil proceedings. Why? Because a civil proceeding is a dispute between individual parties and is generally limited to monetary damages. A criminal action is where the state is actually attempting to take you property, liberty, or even life. Needless to say, the latter two are often unrestorable.

And you are 100% correct that there is a big problem with the criminal courts. But it has alot more to do with non-guilty and process denied convicts than the always popular "freed criminal" (usually these are actually created by legislative reductions to ease prison overcrowding rather than releasing relatively minor offenders, but that's a whole different issue.).

Do you ever stop to think about why defendants with more resources often are acquitted even when there seems to be significant evidence? Now conspiracy theories aside (most exercises of power keep such actions out of the courts anyway), think about this: prosecutors routinely handle cases involving defendants with limited education and limited access to funds. But higher profile defendants can often obtain witnesses and hire skilled attorneys. So mis-steps and shoddy work that would be overlooked for most defendants (especially those who have a record and so look pretty guilty anyway) can be fatal.

The OJ Simpson case is a perfect example. What do you think the odds are that a black man with a history of assault and abuse would have gotten an acquittal in a wealthy suburb if he *didn't* have the dream team? As the Innocence Project illustrates, guilty or not, his odds wouldn't be very good. But a team of top attorneys and investigators brought all the holes in the prosecution to light. Indeed, when the flimsy evidence of many convictions is brought to light, it is often frightening how easy it is for the State to seal you away if you can't afford help. And mere evidence of innocence alone has never been enough to set aside a conviction; it will rarely buy you a new trial! Only if the evidence is overwhelming and incontrovertible do you have hope. Otherwise, you have to hope the prosecution messed up pretty badly on procedure and your attorney can catch it!

According to the news, all but one of them listened to Jackson's music. The real reason why he won though is because the parents were caught in too many lies.
Oh well, I figured he would be found guilty of at least one of the ten charges.

Hmmm... He's guilty as sin. Also, if I was the prosecutor I'd arrest the parents that got paid off not to press charges, because that comes down to pimpin' out your own children. Disgusting.
I actually hoped someone would send a bullet through that stupid black umbrella and put an end to it, but no such luck.

When 12 reasonable adults decided the state had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt? While the charges, if true, would certainly be reprehensible conduct, the jury found them to be unsubstantiated by the evidence.

By your logic, people should be slain based on the whim of one person who has no access to the evidence presented, and probably no real experience or knowledge in the area. Thank God we live in a country of laws instead!

Do you seriously think he lets any little boy just come, and sleep in his bed and he just volunteers to sleep on the floor?

Also, he did say this "I don't molest them it's all lies I just lay down and tuck them in, and read them little stories."

You don't think a 40+ year old letting any boy come sleep in his bed is alright? Think about the scenario there's a 40+ year old man there's a little boy. Hello little boy want to sleep in my bed? I don't really know you, but trust me I'll sleep on the floor you can come sleep in my bed, and I'll read you stories...

If you think a 40+ letting any boy come sleep in his bed is okay then you must not be okay. I bet you wouldn't think the same if he wasn't famous.

Also, would you let your kids go to Never land, and sleep in Michael Jackson's bed?

They had no proof, that family was merely after Jackson's money, people only discriminate against him because of his appearance and 'unusual' behavior. Jackson is smart enough to not ruin his status by doing something so stupid as molest children, he has never had a childhood and nothin is wrong with trying to have one before its too late. I dont think he was guilty, and thats an unbiased opinion. Then again i didnt see the proof but i assume since he went free it was inadequate.

lol, whats wrong with letting them sleep in your bed like a sleep over as long as you dont sleep WITH them? lol i would be against it if he did molest them, but theres just no proof. Whats wrong with reading stories to kids?